Public Bill Committee

(Morning)

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome hon. Members on both sides to the first sitting of this Public Bill Committee. Before we begin, I have some preliminary announcements. I am ever conscious of the comfort of Members, and if it gets a little warmer and they wish to take off their jackets, I am happy that they should do so. Again, and I say this with considerable emphasis, please would Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and other electronic gadgets are switched to silent mode or preferably turned off during Committee.
I advise Members that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill and copies are available in the room. Adequate notice of amendments should be given and, as a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman, Anne Begg, do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion, which is on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence, which I hope we can take formally. My first task, which is a pleasure, is to call the Minister to move the programme motion. I understand that he is to take this Bill through on his own, and we all wish him well in that heavy responsibility.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move,
That
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 9 June) meet
(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 9 June;
(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 11 June;
(c) at 10.30 am and 4.30 pm on Tuesday 16 June;
(d) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 18 June;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 18 June.
Thank you, Sir Nicholas. May I say what a genuine pleasure it is to serve once again under your chairmanship? You are a strong but fair Chairman and I look forward to the Committee. We had a Programming Sub-Committee, in which the Opposition made clear their principled objection to programming. We have not put knives in the debate; we have an end time. The usual channels have a good agreement, so I will not delay the Committee any further.

Damian Green: It is, as ever, life-enhancing to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. I know that you would not wish to accuse me of crawling to the Chair at this early stage of the proceedings. I reiterate our objection in principle to the routine, indeed universal, use of programming. It is particularly inappropriate with this Bill, as will be illustrated. The usual channels have operated well and we have all accepted a suitable programme for progress over the sittings allocated. Given that it is considerably smaller than the draft Bill that the Government put forward a few months ago, it should not and need not be particularly difficult. Many of the more contentious elements and, regrettably, many of the better elements have been taken out. During our proceedings we will attempt to re-insert parts of the draft Bill, which is what some of our amendments try to do. Given that those were originally Government proposals, we look forward to the support of Government Members.
A raft of Government amendments have been tabled already, and I wait with eager anticipation for further amendments to give effect to some of the measures that the former Home Secretary told us about on Second Reading, including a points-based system for citizenship and a cap on the number of people allowed to apply for it.

Phil Woolas: She did not say that.

Damian Green: That is what she told us. I am genuinely interested to know whether those policies have survived the change of Home Secretary last week and whether the appropriate amendments on citizenship will be tabled, as would be entirely proper. Will we have the opportunity to discuss, if not during Committee, on Report, the very interesting ideas that the former Home Secretary put before the House on Second Reading? As I said, however, we have an in-principle objection to these proceedings, but not to the programming motion.

Tom Brake: I echo colleagues comments: it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. Regardless of whether we have objections, in principle, to programming, we support the timetable for this Committee stage. We considered the need for more sittings, but felt that, given that Second Reading did not quite go the full course, the agreed number of sittings might be sufficient to deal with the points that we seek to address. To echo points made, it is disappointing that this Bill does not cover some aspects of borders, citizenship and immigration matters, such as the Governments call for the simplification of legislationI am not convinced that the Bill represents a simplification. Neither does it address a major area of concern about, for example, the destitution of refused asylum seekers who cannot be returned to places such as Zimbabwe. That could, and should, have been addressed, but regrettably was not.
With those few comments, however, the Liberal Democrats are happy with the timetable for the Bill, which we hope to investigate and probe further over the next couple of weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.(Mr. Woolas.)

Nicholas Winterton: I advise hon. Members that copies of any memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.

Clause 1

General customs functions of the Secretary of State

Phil Woolas: I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 17, after section insert (other than in subsection (8)).

This amendment is consequent on amendment 19.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 19 to 26.
Amendment 15, in clause 26, page 20, line 8, leave out from State to end of line and insert or the Director.
Government amendment 29.

Phil Woolas: I beg your forgiveness, Sir Nicholas, because I would like to put the amendments in the context of the clause.

Nicholas Winterton: I am most grateful to the Minister for having discussed this matter with me already. I am very happy for the mover of an amendmentin this case, the Ministeron occasion to explain the purpose of the relevant clause. That might remove the necessity of a clause stand part debate, which may often go over matters that have already been discussed. If it allows for proper scrutiny, I am happy for the clause to be described in general at the beginning of a group of amendments.

Phil Woolas: Thank you very much, Sir Nicholas.
The Committee will be aware that the clause is a key component of part 1 of the Bill. Part 1 runs from clause 1 to clause 38 and deals with the UK Border Agency. In essence, it proposes that we put on a statutory footing the merger of the customs functions taken from Her Majestys Revenue and Customs and the immigration functions taken from the Border and Immigration Agency, previously known as the immigration and nationality directorate.
Clause 1 relates to the general customs functions of the Secretary of State. Bringing the functions together will increase the UK Border Agencys effectiveness in tackling smuggling, illegal immigration and other cross-border crime. Providing more flexibility and powers for the deployment of officers in tackling those threats at the border will enhance border security and therefore the protection of our country.
The clause will give the Secretary of State the power to exercise general customs functions concurrently with the commissioners for Revenue And Customs. The clause specifically prevents the Secretary of State from exercising any of the commissioners revenue functions or any of their non-revenue functions that are not relevant to the UK Border Agencys role, such as their work inland regulating bureaux de change and other money businesses. There is a transfer of powers from Her Majestys Revenue and Customs. I think that the Committee will be satisfied that the Bill contains the necessary safeguards, which are there already for Revenue and Customs.
I will explain the derivation and impact of the amendments before us. The Bill has been subject to significant scrutiny. I am a big fan of pre-legislative scrutinyand, for the record, post-legislative scrutiny. The House would be wise to do more of that. The hon. Member for Ashford has mentioned the draft Bill. The short Bill before us is not the complete jigsaw puzzle. The draft Bill that has been scrutinised in part by the Select Committee will be brought back to the House with proposals. The Bill we are considering is a Lords Bill. It started in the Lords and has been scrutinised there.

Damian Green: I apologise for interrupting the Minister when he is only just getting into his flow. When he says that the draft Bill is coming back, does he mean that the simplification Bill in the next Session will include everything in the draft Bill?

Phil Woolas: Yes. The draft Bill will come back as the simplification Bill. That is an attempt to have a comprehensive Bill.
True to our word, we have listened to the other place. The Government amendments will refine the clause in response to the noble Lords debate and some of their suggestions. Never let it be said that the Government are inflexible in the face of good scrutiny. What is perhaps confusing for hon. Members is that some of the amendments do not relate to clause 1. However, it was wise to put them together.
Let me explain the purpose of these amendments. I advise the Committee to resist amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford, who will no doubt explain his proposition. The purpose of my amendments is to clarify the extent of the customs functions that may be exercised by, first, the Secretary of State, and secondly, the director of border revenuewe will debate who that should be in further clauses and amendmentsas well as designated customs officials. Specifically, the Government amendments make clear that these functions include customs functions under European Community law. The amendments follow scrutiny in the other place and we believe they are necessary to ensure that the remit of the UK Border Agency, in respect of the exercise of its new customs functions, is clear and that adjustments can be made to exclude or include particular functions as appropriate from the definition of general customs functions.
This is necessary for two reasons. First, clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to exercise the functions of the commissioners for Revenue and Customs concurrently with them in relation to general customs matters. The term general customs matters may draw in certain functions already exercisable by the Secretary of State and there is, therefore, a need to ensure that other provisions in the Bill, such as the information provisions covered in clauses 14 to 20, apply only to the functions of the commissioners which the Secretary of State will be able to exercise under the Bill. Secondly, it is necessary to ensure that the information clauses apply to customs functions exercisable directly under Community law. Specifically, amendments 18 and 19 amend the meaning for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill of general customs functions. They clarify the extent of these exercisable by the Secretary of State and the general customs officials. The effect of the amendment is to make clear that the relevant customs functions are, first, those that are exercisable by virtue of clause 1 and clause 3; secondly, those that are conferred on either the Secretary of State or general customs officials by virtue of clauses 22 to 24; and thirdly, those under Community law. The amendment also ensures that the information clauses in the Bill apply to all of these functions.
Amendment 20, the third one in the group, is related and consequential to amendments 18 and 19.
Amendment 21 is similarly consequential to amendments 18 and 19 and adjusts, confusingly, perhaps, Sir Nicholas, if you are still with me

Nicholas Winterton: I am.

Phil Woolas: clause 5 to reflect the new definition of general customs functions, which we are discussing in clause 1. Amendment 22 is similar in its purpose and effect to amendments 18 and 19. It amends clause 7 to clarify the extent of the customs revenue functions which may be exercised by the director of border revenue and customs revenue officials. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 are consequential to amendment 22 and change respectively clauses 9, 10 and 13 to reflect the new definition in clause 7 that I just referred to. Amendment 26 is related to the other amendments in this group. It clarifies that clause 26which provides for transfer schemes to be made by HMRCapplies to things done by the Secretary of State, director of border revenue or designated customs officials in connection with the relevant function as previously exercised by the commissioners or an officer of Revenue and Customs including things done under Community law.
Amendment 29 amends clause 38 to provide interpretation for the term Community law for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill. That interpretation is necessary, I am advised, to make clear the meaning of that term which is now used in clauses 1 and 7 as a result of amendments 18, 19 and 22. In short, in order to transfer the powers of customs to the new set-up, the new agencythe Secretary of State, the director of border revenue, who we propose to be the chief executive officer of the UK Border Agency, and designated officials under herwe need clarity in the definition of those powers, and that is what the amendment brings.
If I may, Sir Nicholas, I would like to ask the Committee to consider the arguments on amendment 15. The hon. Member for Ashford will explain what he is trying to do here better than I can, but removing designated customs officials from the definition of a relevant function, for the purposes of the transfer of the schemes provisions in clause 26, would not achieve what we want to see. Clause 26(7) defines a relevant function as:
A function conferred by...this Part on the Secretary of State, the Director or a designated customs official.
Under the amendment, a transfer scheme could not operate so as to transfer things done by the commissioners or revenue and customs officers in relation to functions conferred by the Bill on designated customs officials. Proceedings on other matters done or started by an officer, such as seizure actions, could not be treated as done and continued by a designated customs officer. The scheme would only work, therefore, in respect of functions transferred to the Secretary of State or the director of border revenue, rather than their officers.
I hope I have explained the purpose of the amendments as clearly as possible. At this early stage of the Bills proceedings I ask for the trust of the Committee and will try to clarify any explanation that I may have inadequately given. However, I assure you, Sir Nicholas that the amendments result from a very deep consideration of the points made in the other place. I therefore urge the Committee to support the Government amendments and to consider the argument of the hon. Member for Ashford on amendment 15.

Damian Green: I thank the Minister for that tour de force of clarity in the face of some opposition from the words in front of him. I was remiss in not congratulating him on still sitting there and retaining his post, in the light of recent events. Whether he is as delighted as I am still to be there[Interruption.] I apologise, Sir Nicholas. If it is any consolation to the Committee, it was my wife. I apologise.

Nicholas Winterton: I am glad the mobile phone was on silentish.

Damian Green: Ish. Moving swiftly on, Sir Nicholas.
Before I address the detail of what the Minister said, I would like to return to the point I raised in my intervention. The Minister said that the draft Bill, of which this Bill was a small part, will now become the simplification Bill. I am genuinely puzzled and hope that in the course of our discussions he can explain the purpose of introducing the simplification Bill, which we know is hundreds of clauses long and very complex, at this stage of the parliamentary cycle where, whatever happens, it is extremely unlikely to complete its course before a general election that has to take place by May or June of next year. It seems a bizarre use of parliamentary time.

Phil Woolas: That is because we are going to win.

Damian Green: The Minister says from a sedentary position that the Labour party is going to win the next election. The British people will decide, as they did last week. He knows that if Parliament is dissolved the Bill will fall, and even if he is still sitting there in a years time, he will have to reintroduce it. I am genuinely puzzled as to what the organisational purpose is of introducing it now.
Before I test your patience any longer, Sir Nicholas, let me turn to the Conservative amendments and the many Government amendments. On looking at the amendment paper, the Committee might reasonably have been disturbed to find 10 Government amendments to clause 1 of this Governments eighth immigration Bill. That does not build confidence, and I was even more exercised by the papers from outside lobby groups and others, in which one of the first amendments proposed to Opposition parties was to delete the whole of part 1. I had felt that this was one of the less controversial parts of the Bill, yet there are those outside who wish the whole part deleted, and the Government have tabled multiple amendments to their own legislation.
It is not as alarming as all that, as some of the amendments clearly derive, as the Minister has said, from some good debates in another place. We should be grateful to their lordships for the scrutiny they have applied to the Bill, and from which this group of amendments derives. I am particularly glad that in this instance Ministers appear to have listened to their lordships, because I think that some of the more contentious debates that we will have in Committee will arise from the Government trying to reverse the votes taken in another place.
As the Minister has made clear, this group of amendments deals with the extension of the powers of customs officers and immigration officers and the proper way to exercise those powers. We are talking about the general customs function and it is reasonable to ask for a substantial explanation of that function. It was the focus of much of the debate in another place, and the Minister has struggled manfully with that. Government amendment 19 in particular, however, seems to be close to saying that a general customs function is what Ministers say it is:
a function that is exercisable
(i) by the Secretary of State by virtue of this section, or
(ii) by general customs officials.
That is to say, that one can tell that it is a general customs function because it is being exercised by customs officials. I feel that that is never an entirely satisfactory way of defining something in legislation. It is not immediately clear what functions would be included or excluded from the range of general customs functions by way of the amendment. This is the right part of the Bill in which to ask these questions, and perhaps to ask the Minister to state, when he sums up, what general customs functions he is talking about, in practical terms. I am sure that we could all sit down and make a list of what we think general customs functions would be, but it would be extremely useful to have that on the record. I encourage the Minister to make clear reference to the functions for the commissioners for Revenue and Customs, and to tell us which functions should be included or excluded from the general customs functionsgeneral customs matters, as they are referred to elsewhere in the Bill.
One of the reasons why it is important to establish great clarity at this stage is that we should be clear that the amendments give extra powers to the Secretary of State, and through him to immigration officials. The question of whether those powers are exercised by appropriately trained people lies at the heart of the debate about the changes within the UK Border Agency and HMRC. To some extent, there is no great divide across the House on that. We agree that there has been too great a diversityan incoherence, indeedof people with powers at the border, and we all want more cross-cutting powers. As the Committee will discuss later, the Conservatives favour a proper integrated border police force so that the powers will be exercised by trained police officers, which would help to alleviate the problem. Before we get to that, however, when powers are being shared and spread around, as they will be under the amendments, it is legitimate to ask about the new functions and the new powers that they represent, and about who will be exercising those powers.
Effectively, the customs officials powers, which are extremely broad, are being shared out to immigration officers. As the Minister will be aware, customs officials can undertake a very wide range of extremely intrusive activities. The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 confers many of those functions and powers. Under that Act, a customs officer may ask to search a person or anything they have with them if he or she reasonably suspects that the person is carrying any item that is prohibited or restricted, or any item that is liable to excise duty or tax that has not been paid. Furthermore, officials have the power to detain a person for as long as is reasonably necessary while the search is being carried out. If a person does not agree to that search, a customs official may make an arrest. I am going into detail because it is worth the Committee considering the full extent of the powers that customs officials have when they are being shared around.
The threshold for the reasonable suspicion that a customs officer needs to have is very low and can include a combination of factors, including the origin of a persons journey, their clothing and any unusual quantity of luggage. The threshold is low and the intrusive powers are great. Searches can include searches of pockets, a rub-down, a strip search or an intimate search. The powers available to customs officers also include forfeiture powers, powers to enter premises, and powers of search and seizure. This measure extends those powers to UKBA staff, who will be able to carry out physical examinations at the frontier, both of their own volition and at the direction of HMRC.
On top of those things, customs officials have the capacity to take fingerprints and DNA, and they can seize money under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. They have surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and data acquisition and sharing powers under the Identity Cards Act 2006, the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Serious Crime Act 2007.
At this stage of our proceedings, we ought to have some kind of reassurance from the Minister that the extension of the powers, which are very extensive and intrusive, is being handled properly and that they are being extended to people who are properly trained and equipped to deal with them. I hope that the Minister addresses in detail whether the clause could provide that the extension does not apply to section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which allows customs officers, and therefore, one would assume, immigration officers, the powers to undertake intimate searches.
A number of other customs powers appear not to bear any relationship to immigration, and it is legitimate to ask the Minister whether they should have been exempted or why they are necessary for the proper control of immigration. The idea of greater coherence is good in principle, as I said, and obviously it almost goes without saying that Members on both sides of the Committee want a better controlled immigration system. However, I have genuine worries, as do others, about some of the details and the possible spread of powers to people who are not properly trained in exercising them.
I tabled amendment 15 to probe the Governments intentions. It would restrict the power of the Secretary of State or the director of border revenue to designate any official to carry out those customs functions. The Minister has already said that he does not accept the amendment as he thinks that it would be unduly restrictive. I accept that it is designed to be restrictive, but it was tabled precisely to explore the full extent of the extension and sharing of power that he proposes. I am sure that he will accept that that point applies not only to the clause and the amendments, but to the whole of part 1. While we proceed along this pathwhich we both agree is one we should go downit is all the more important to ensure that we do not extend intrusive powers unnecessarily, as there are important matters of civil liberties to consider.
In principle, the Conservative party believes that there is not enough coherence between the many agencies that currently operate at our borders. The Government have been anxious for a couple of years to look as though they are setting up a single border force. They do not actually seem to be doing so, but I suppose that we should count our blessings where we can. The fact that the Government seek to move in that direction is better than the reverse would be. In that context, we are not hostile in principle to the Governments intentions in the clause, but I would welcome the clarifications that I have sought from the Minister about the detailed practical effects of the general customs function, and of the extension of powers proposed in his amendments.

Tom Brake: I support the general principle behind what the Government seek to achieve by better integrating aspects of customs and immigration. The Liberal Democrat party favours a UK border force similar to that advocated by the Conservative spokesman, but we would also combine police powers. However, we are supportive of the general principle behind what the Government seek to do.
Like the hon. Member for Ashford, we have concerns about the extent to which general customs functions are being extended. He did a good job of outlining the powers available to customs officers and noting the reasons why there need to be suitable safeguards in place and training available. I hope that the Minister will be specific about what grade of officers will have those powers and whether the level of training that they receive will be comparable to that provided to customs officers. I hope that hon. Members will get some reassurance that the people who take on these extensiveand in some cases intrusivepowers, will be suitably qualified for the job.
I support the description given by the hon. Member for Ashford of amendment 15 as a general probing amendment designed to get the Government to be more specific in explaining how the powers will be extended and the extent to which that is happening. I hope that hon. Members can have some reassurance that the provision is within the spirit of what we are all trying to achieve, but does not provide extensive powers that we would feel uncomfortable with should they be exercised by people who were not suitably trained, or who had powers beyond what would be considered acceptable. I shall listen carefully to the Ministers response, particularly in relation to amendment 15, and hope that it is satisfactory.

Phil Woolas: Those questions were entirely reasonable, and some were powerful. I shall try to answer them.
First, I must make it clear that we are talking about general customs functions, as distinct from customs revenue functions. The revenue functions, established under HMRC, have a relationship to Ministers that is different from general customs functions, which we shall deal with under clause 6 and elsewhere. Ministers cannot be involved in customs financial revenue functions, just as we cannot be involved in Inland Revenue functions. That is quite right, and I hope that it always remains so.
The director of border revenue, whom we propose to be the chief executive of UKBAthe accountable officer is a phrase with which Members will be familiarwould deal exclusively with customs revenue functions such as the collection and enforcement of excise duties on imported alcohol and tobacco, the collection and enforcement of customs duties more generally, import VAT, and the prevention of smuggling of goods liable to VAT and excise and customs duties.
The hon. Member for Ashford asked me to give some examples of what is meant in the real world by general customs. Seizing criminal cash is a common function. Others include preventing unsafe products being imported into the UK; maintaining sanctions on countries and arms embargos; reducing and deterring trade in endangered species of animals and plants; control of commercial vessels and ships coming into our ports; preventing the importation of offensive weapons such as knives, daggers and so on; preventing the importation of obscene or indecent material, particularly child pornography; preventing the introduction of pest and diseases harmful to animals and/or humans, such as foot and mouth, bird flu and fowl plague; preventing the import and export of controlled drugs; and preventing chemical weapons, toxic chemicals and so on from coming into the UK and being obtained by terrorist organisations. That is not an exhaustive list, but they are the main headings under the general customs functions.
Few new powers are given under part 1. Those powers mentioned are existing customs powers. The hon. Member for Ashford got the point about UKBA, but he is right that the powers, if designated to officials, will include what are currently the powers of immigration officers. I have answered his question directly.
The Secretary of State already has the power to put in place effective border controls relating to immigration matters, and although the Bills provisions extend the functions of the Home Secretary to include the general customs matters that I have listed, they do not create new substantive powers. Instead, the provisions simply allow the exercise of existing powers by the Home Secretary and his officials rather than by Her Majestys Revenue and Customs. More importantly, and to reassure the Committee, they do not result in any loss of border control powers when transferring functions from Revenue and Customs to the Border Agency.
On the specific point being quietly pushed by the hon. Members for Ashford and for Carshalton and Wallington, immigration officers at portsI include airports in thathave a wide range of powers to operate immigration control and tackle immigration-related crime. Part of our strategy is exactly to use immigration powers to tackle immigration-related crime. It is what inside UKBA we call the Elliott Ness strategy, and very effective it is, too.

Damian Green: I am not sure that the Minister meant to say that he was using immigration powers to tackle immigration offencesthe Elliott Ness strategy. Did he mean customs powers to tackle immigration?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is very awake this morning. The story of Elliott Ness is that Al Capone, the gangster, was caught not by the laws relating to murder and guns, but by the tax laws. Immigration-related crime can on occasions be properly highlighted by the using immigration powers. There is nothing new about that. He asked whether I meant customs-related powers. The powers of examination, search, detention and arrest already apply to immigration officials in relation to immigration control and immigration-related crime. As we know, customs officers also have a wide range of powers to combat smuggling of prohibited, restricted or dutiable goods at the border, such as drugs, guns, tobacco and alcohol. One of the key arguments why everyone supports bringing together the two functions is because we are often trying to catch the same people.
The powers of customs officials include powers of questioning, search, detention, seizure and arrest. In integrating immigration customs controls, it is essential that officers of the border agency have the necessary powers to carry out the full range of immigration and customs functions at the border to support wider law enforcement activity. When we discuss clause 23, we shall go into more detail about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington highlight, and I commend the consistency of his approach.
The key difference between the two sets of powers is, indeed, the seizure power, which is related to later measures. In integrating immigration and customs controls, it is essential that the officers have the necessary powers to carry out the full range of immigration and customs functions at the border. Not only will that enhance the skills and capabilities of our border force but, by increasing the capacity, it will also allow us to respond more flexibly to the threats that we face and to maximise the effectiveness of the agency.
The hon. Member for Ashford asked whether the powers would therefore be properly authorised. That was his consequential point. The designation of officers under the Bill can take place only when the officer is suitable and properly trained. That includes powers to search persons, as has been noted. However, the power will be used not for immigration functions, but for customs functions only, as it is now.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about the training for designated customs officials. Before being entitled to be designated, they must undertake training. The appropriate skills required include, of course, those under the relevant legislation; knowledge of the customs regime, such as the common agricultural policy; disclosure handling of material that is gathered during criminal investigation; questioning and note-taking; how to arrest and caution; custody charging and bail procedures; rules of evidence; customs allowances; how to deal with EU and non-EU goods; the calculation of duty and VAT; searching a persons baggage and vehicle; and personal safety training, of course. I bring to the Committees attention, in particular to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, that that training needs to be specific to Scotland, where there is a separate legal regime.

David Hamilton: Some time ago, I was involved in a Westminster Hall debate on the issue. It makes no sense to simplify legislation while we continue to use various local police forces. That does not add up. For example, in Scotland, Strathclyde police have to deal with Glasgow airport, Lothian and Borders police with Edinburgh airport, Tayside police with Dundee airport and Grampian police with Aberdeen airport. Is this not the time to consider a proper UK border police force? That would make perfect sense, because it would be a logical extension of how things are going.

Simon Burns: That is what we think.

David Hamilton: I do not agree with the Tories though.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. May I help the Committee? That was a very relevant question, but I am not entirely sure that it is relevant at this stage. However, I will use my discretion and allow the Minister to reply.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. The relevant phrase is, Now is not the time. I do not mean that in relation to the Committees debate, but in relation to the evolution of UKBA. The hon. Member

Simon Burns: Friend.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the relationship between police forces, UKBA and the existing powers. This mornings debate is restricted to a set of proposals that simply transfer existing powers from HMRC to UKBA and expand the role of immigration officials to include the capacity, under certain conditions that I have outlined, to deal with customs as well as immigration matters.
I accept the intention of amendment 15, as proposed by the hon. Member for Ashford, but it would not have the desired effect. In practice, it would exclusively transfer functions to the Secretary of State and to the director of border revenue, and not to their officers, so they would not be allowed to carry out their functions.

Damian Green: The Minister will be relieved that I am not going to discuss the border police again. He has very helpfully given us a list of all the ways in which officers being given the new powers will have to be trained, which illustrates the extensive amount of training and the sensitive subjects involved. Will he give an indication of the level and length of training that is being undertaken by officials who are being given the new powers? Clearly, customs powers need to be given to some while immigration training needs to be given to others. It would help the Committee to know whether the training is as thorough as it should be so that we can all have confidence in the people who are given the powers.

Tom Brake: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: If the question is on the same point, I will.

Tom Brake: To echo that point, will the Minister confirm whether the training will be of the same duration as the current training? He also highlighted seizure as an area in which there are new powers. Will he focus on that in particular and confirm that the training will be identical to the current training given to customs officials?

Phil Woolas: Personally, I believe that that is an extremely important point. Part of our strategy in unifying UKBA is to increase the publics awareness of the professional status of our officials. In short, they get a bad press, which is unfair because they do a very dangerous job in many cases and occasionally have to deal with some pretty difficult people. I do not mean just members of the British public; I mean criminal elements. Of course, the management strategies that are in place for transferring the functions are not wholesale. There is not a simple move-over; there is a staged approach. I will make some points about that approach which may be helpful.
We have transferred some 4,500 officers of Revenue and Customs to the UK Border Agency so that they can continue carrying out their customs functions. What matters is the size of the port. At Harwich, for example, where there is a team of about two dozen immigration and customs officials dealing with the two major ferry routes and the general freight, having more flexibility clearly means that there is a greater capacity. However, if one looks at, say, Heathrows terminal 3I choose that example off the top of my headwhere there are a large number of staff, there are more specialisms within that staff group, so the training programmes are bespoke. It is not as if all officers are getting all the same training to transfer to do all the same functions. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman accepts, it is not as straightforward as that.
As I have said, however, some 4,500 officers of Revenue and Customs will transfer to the UK Border Agency to continue carrying out their customs functions. The training for officers, to top up, involves two weeks of guided learning, a six-week residential course and a period of between four and six weeks, depending on the port or airport concerned, in situ. That training is also accredited and it is, of course, not the full extent of the training that is required. So there are programmes in place to help people to transfer and to top up.
I think that the specific question was, Can we be confident? I have satisfied myself that the training is in addition to other requirements and that it is both working and beneficial. I have seen the success of the project on my visits. I hope that that does not sound like propaganda; I am speaking on behalf of the agency rather than making any political point. The successes that we have had in seizures and in stopping clandestines can be ascribed, I think, to the establishment of the agency. In some cases, I think that they can be ascribed to better training, although the technology is perhaps having a major effect too.
I reassure the Committee by saying that the transfer of the powers does not involve new powers. The relationship between the Secretary of State and the revenue functions of Customs does not change that strongly held and conventional principle about new powers in our systems.
The hon. Member for Ashford is right about the powers on immigration: they extend to customs functions as part of the establishment of the agency. The point about the police and their relationship with this issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian raised and which has also been raised in the other place, is covered elsewhere in the Bill.

Tom Brake: I want to be certain that the Minister understands our concerns; I am sure that he does. We are still worried that officers are potentially becoming more generalist in their approach, with a wider range of responsibilities that potentially leads to more problems, or more failures to follow the appropriate guidelines or procedures. Is anything in place that will ensure that the training programme is reviewed after a certain period, to guarantee that it is pitched at the appropriate level?

Phil Woolas: I am not aware of a specific date by which there would be a review; I would have to ask the senior management to give me information on that. What I can say is that the transfer of terms and conditions is one of the most complicated transfers of this kind that I have been aware of, and I have seen a lot of such transfers. Training, and the commitment to revisit training, are part of that process. We need to see whether the training is working and whether we have got the balance between the economies of scale, with the greater flexibilities that they bring and the specialisms that are needed, right in each port.
A real example would be X-raying for radioactive materials. Perhaps the most important function that UKBA carries out is trying to prevent people from bringing dirty bombs into the country. Clearly, that is a specialist function and we will not dilute it. Having said that, the answer to the specific question is that I cannot in all honesty say that I am aware of a date. The advice I have just been handed assures me that training is being reviewed, but I apologise because I do not think there is a specific date on that. I think it is a rolling programme, depending on the circumstances in the ports and airports.
I hope I have convinced the Committee that the amendments are necessary and beneficial and that amendment No. 15, although well intended, would not achieve what it is designed to do. I nevertheless accept the intention behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Amendment made:19, in clause 1, page 2, line 36, leave out from means to end of line 37 and insert 
(a) a function that is exercisable
(i) by the Secretary of State by virtue of this section, or
(ii) by general customs officials by virtue of section 3,
(b) a function that is conferred on general customs officials or the Secretary of State by or by virtue of any of sections 22 to 24 (investigations and detention), or
(c) a function under Community law that is exercisable by the Secretary of State or general customs officials in relation to a matter
(i) in relation to which functions under Community law are exercisable by the Commissioners or officers of Revenue and Customs, and
(ii) that is not listed in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2)..(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment defines the general customs functions exercisable by the Secretary of State and general customs officials, including functions under Community law, so that clauses 14 to 21 apply to information generated in the exercise of those functions.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Power of Secretary of State to modify functions

Amendment made:20, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert
( ) make provision for a function of the Secretary of State or general customs officials to be treated, or not to be treated, as a general customs function..(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is related to amendment 19 and provides the Secretary of State with power to modify, by order, the definition of general customs function to include or exclude, as appropriate, particular functions.

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, at end add
(4) The Secretary of State must lay an annual report before both Houses of Parliament detailing the amendments that have been made by order under subsection (1)..
I observe that we all spoke very briefly about how the programme motion was very relaxed, and we have just spent an hour dealing with clause 1 of a 61 clause Bill. I seek to reassure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in saying that I suspect that from now on progress will be slightly faster, unless there are more rafts of Government amendments, as yet unseen, for later parts of the Bill. That is always possible.
Amendment 2 would protect and enhance the powers of this place. We suggest that the Secretary of State should have to lay an annual report before both Houses of Parliament detailing the amendments that have been made by order under subsection (1). This aspect of the Bill was not debated in another place, but as we have just debated, the Home Secretary has the power to amend the definitions and applications of general customs matters, which, as we established in that very good debate, are extremely powerful matters in the hands of officers. If they can be amended by the Home Secretary, we believe it right that he should report regularly to the House on the changes made.
On Second Reading, there was a degree of consensus on that matter among Opposition parties. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on home affairs, complained about a degree of reliance on statutory instruments, which give Ministers the power to make things up at a later date. A similar complaint was made not only by me, but by my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary.
Such concerns take on added significance in light of amendment 20, which has just been agreed to. I think we would all agree that, at this difficult time for Parliament, the power of Parliament to scrutinise legislation in detail is one of the things that we do not get right and we have not got right for a very long time. Frankly, we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to give Parliament the chance to do one of the jobs that people expect it to do. It should not simply scrutinise the big Bills on Second Reading or in Committee; it should make sure that the small things that often become big later are properly scrutinised as well.
The Minister made an extremely good point earlier when he said that he believed in pre-legislative scrutiny. He is right about that. However, he also said that he believed in post-legislative scrutiny and he is right about that, too. Inevitably, some legislation has unintended consequences. If the House of Commons passes legislation knowingly and openly and there are unintended consequences, we all have to face up to that problem. However, the amendment would stop a different problem whereby innocuous- looking orders, or decisions, can be made by Ministersnot quite in secret; I am not accusing anyone of thatin relation to matters that would not normally attract any attention. One, two or three years down the line, one might suddenly discover that those issues have had a significant effect on the lives of many people, who cannot understand how the decision was made without anyone raising an objection at the time.

Tom Brake: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentlemans proposal, but if it an annual report, will that not be published after the horse has bolted? Therefore, all his concerns will remain because it will simply be a case of logging what has already happened.

Damian Green: To some extent, that is a perfectly fair point. This is not perfect. Perfection would be to give Parliament the ability to scrutinise publicly and in debate every order that is made. I think we all know that, in practical terms, that is not going to happen.
Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that even if it is a case of looking at things after they have happened, the fact that Ministers will have to make this annual reportand they know that they will have to do sowill act as a brake on them and make them think, Do I want to write this into the annual report that I know I will have to produce on these matters? Will this look acceptable? The use of deterrents is an important weapon for Parliament to have.
Again, I am sure that all parties would agree that it is dangerous to allow Ministers almost unfettered power, but that is one of the possible effects of the system that we have. It is sensible for this House to seek to insert itself into that process and to be able to do its proper job. Clause 2 (2)(b) in particular gives Ministers extremely wide powers. Any sensible Minister would welcome the possibility of having some sort of oversight because, of course, one of the long-term effects of effective oversight is that Ministers can often be saved from themselves. The prospect of being scrutinised would give rise to further ministerial self-censorship, and prevent foolish things being done. This is a modest proposal, which I hope the Minister will welcome for his own sake as much as anyone elses.

Phil Woolas: I agree with the hon. Gentlemans intent. It is important to clarify Parliaments intent because otherwise it is left to courts and tribunals to do so, but let me reassure him.
The clause and the explanatory notes describe the powers being transferred, which can be used only by affirmative order of the House. Therefore, the purpose of the hon. Gentlemans amendmentthat Ministers would have to justify such useis already met. My argument against the annual report is not that it is not desirable for accountabilityhe is absolutely right that the existence of such a report would get the Minister to consider thatbut that that is already the case because of the affirmative resolution requirement. With that reassurance, I hope that he will not press his amendment.

Damian Green: I am grateful for the Ministers words. In the spirit of good will, I shall accept his reassurance and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Designation of general customs officials

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, leave out from officer to end of line 21.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 4, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (3).

Damian Green: We may be in danger of going over ground that we have already trodden on, but it cannot be trodden on too often. These two amendments deal with the importance of training those who exercise powers. The clause deals with the designation of general customs officials, and we seek to ensure that only properly trained immigration officers may be designated as general customs officials. There were good debates about this in the other place.
The Minister has told us in detail what powers there are and what training is given, and that has been helpful, but it is relevant to consider the wider point that we need a consistent approach at our borders, including various ports and airports. In that context, the hon. Member for Midlothians intervention was very good. Even before we get to the debate about the border police, we are anxious that there should be proper training, so that we can be confident that the people who exercise powers do so well. We also want the powers to be exercised consistently at all places. A consideration that is always uppermost in our mind is the opportunity for immigration and customs crimes to be committed relatively easily at some smaller ports and airports, which inevitably do not have the permanent infrastructure of those at Heathrow, Dover, Harwich and the big airports in Scotland to which he referred. In seeking to assure ourselves that there is adequate training, we are conscious that we want the job to become perhaps slightly more difficult in future because we will need a more mobile force than we have at present.
We will need part of the Border Agency or the border police, whichever institution is actually carrying out those important functions. We will want people who are not just sitting in one place, but are able to get out and plug the loopholes that we all know are there and, more dangerously, that some of the worlds international criminals know are there. I dare say that I am telling the Minister nothing he does not already know, because I am sure that he is as concerned as I am about the possible use of small ports and airports for smuggling and immigration crime.
I would like to put to the Minister one of the points made in another place by my noble Friend Lady Hanham, who, when discussing the provision allowing powers to be given to any other official of the Secretary of State, asked what kind of considerations would be used in such cases, because an extremely wide power is being slipped through in the clause. Having the ability simply to add the function of customs official to any official of the Secretary of State makes ones eyebrows rise. In practice, we all know, or at least hope, that Ministers and the senior management of the agency would seek to add those functions only for appropriate officials, but a degree of reassurance from the Minister would be helpful at this stage in our scrutiny.
The Minister has already said that 4,500 Revenue and Customs officers are being transferred and will no longer be officers of HMRC, and that part of the clauses purpose is to redesignate them so that they can continue to exercise the customs functions they currently carry out in addition to the immigration functions he is seeking to add. We have heard about the training of immigration officers, so it would be useful to have detail about the training of the customs officers as well. In another place the Ministers noble Friend Lord West said that he did not believe it was necessary to appoint those who transfer from HMRC as immigration officers first. I hope that the Minster will expand on why the Government believe that that is unnecessary, because it would clearly act as some kind of check.
While we are discussing the amendment, this would be an appropriate time for the Minister to give us an update on the progress of the merger of the organisations, because he will be more aware than I am that HMRC and UKBA are two very separate organisations with different cultures that he is trying to bring together. One hears of stresses and strains, which is not surprising and is entirely normal, but certainly those stresses and strains are there. While we are passing the legislation that will make permanent that merger and put it on a statutory footing, it would be instructive for the Committee to know what is happening on the ground. Are those different groups of people, with their different training, backgrounds and organisational cultures, actually working together smoothly, or could that be best described as a work in progress? Many key practical issues are brought up by these apparently minor amendments, so I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that all proper things are being done to ensure that the borders are being made more secure on the ground.

Tom Brake: I rise not to go over the ground that has been covered in relation to training aspects but to pick up on a point that I am sure the Minister has been lobbied about by the Public and Commercial Services Union. What is the definition of an official of the Secretary of State? Clearly, the PCSU has concerns that an official could include, for instance, a contractor working for the Secretary of State. It might be helpful for Members if the Minister clarified whether the word official could include private contractors recruited by the Government to work within that department.

Phil Woolas: On the last point, the answer is no. The officials who can be designated are customs and immigration officials. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
On the process of designating, clause 3, amended or otherwise, will allow the Home Secretary to designate as general customs officials immigration officers, former HMRC officers transferred to the Home Office under the provisions of the Bill and any other of his officials. As I mentioned during the debate on clause 1, they will have the same functions and powers in relation to general customs matters as an officer of HMRC. They will also carry out the Secretary of States general customs function. The purpose is to allow front-line officials of the Border Agency the powers necessary to exercise both customs and immigration functions. As I have said, we believe that that will enhance our capacity in the national interest.
Subsection 3 makes it clear that the Carltona principle, in accordance with which the Secretary of States functions may be exercised by any of his officials, is preserved. It is the principle whereby powers of the Secretary of State that are delegated are deemed to be powers. On the specific point about the amendment, because general customs officials will have the same functions and powers in relation to general customs matters as an officer of HMRC would have, and may also carry out the Secretary of States general customs functions, by virtue of the provisions in the Bill, some 4,500 officersthe hon. Member for Ashford is right about that figureof HMRC will be transferred to the UK Border Agency in August, subject to the will of Parliament and the discussion of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman teased me about a simplification Bill. One reason why we introduced this small Bill is that we need statutory powers to put things on a proper footing. At the moment, we are in a halfway house. On progress in the other direction, we are bringing together the two bodies under a joint management structure. To date, about 2,000 immigration officers have been trained in customs matters as we increase capacity.
To finish my point about the amendments, limiting the designation of general customs officials to immigration officers would mean that all customs officers transferring would first have to be appointed as immigration officers so that they could then be appointed as general customs officers in order to get on with their customs work. I accept that the hon. Gentleman seeks clarification on how that will work, but I hope he accepts that if we did what the amendment proposes, we would add to the bureaucracy.
Amendment 3 could prevent the Secretary of State from designating former HMRC officers as general customs officers immediately on transfer to UKBA, which would obviously limit their ability to carry out their functions, and it would require the Secretary of State to appoint all such officials as immigration officers even where they did not have the training to exercise immigration functions, or indeed the need to exercise immigration functions in regard to larger ports.
On Amendment 4, subsection (3) of the clause makes it clear that, notwithstanding the exercise of the Secretary of States general customs functions by general customs officials, the Carltona principle applies. I hope the Committee will appreciate the importance of that. The Secretary of States functions may be exercised by any of his officials and subsection (3) ensures that this important principle is preserved in respect of all the Secretary of States functions.
In light of that explanation, I hope that the Committee will accept the good sense of what I am proposing.

Damian Green: I certainly accept the Ministers good intentions. I observe that he did not respond to my invitation to tell us how things are going on the ground. I take silence to indicate a lack of profound happiness with the progress of the merger so far.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman should take it as fear of the Chairmans wrath rather than anything to do with the implementation of the merger.

Nicholas Winterton: Very wise.

Damian Green: I am sure we all live in permanent fear of the Chairmans wrath. Nevertheless, as the Minister knows, this provision is one of the more difficult parts of the exercise and although we can sit here and pass legislation and discuss it in great detail, it is perhaps a lesson for all of us that the lives of real people are being affected by it so we should be concerned about the efficacy with which they are doing their jobs.

Tom Brake: We may require the indulgence of the Chairman for a couple of seconds, but the hon. Member for Ashford would probably agree that given that we all support the integration of these different powers, it would be appropriate for the Minister to highlight now whether there are significant personnel issues, because that could damage the project in its entirety.

Damian Green: That is a legitimate point. As the Minister has already observed, this is not an issue on which there is any dividing principle. We all agree that the mutual use of powers among those who come from different organisations historically will improve the safety and security of our borders, but the transitional phase will be difficult. If it is proving more difficult than we thought, the Committee should be made aware of that. It would beor would have been, if the moment has passedappropriate therefore for the Minister to do that. All we can do under your iron rule, Sir Nicholas, is to observe that we have had no particular reassurances about that.
I do not propose to press the amendments to a vote, but I hope that at the forefront of Ministers minds is our continuing concern that the exercising of great powers by officers of the state should always be accompanied by very strict training regimes and permanent observation, and that we are not giving inappropriate powers to people who may not have the skills and sensitivity to use them. There is a very serious underlying principle: it is relatively easy for Ministers to say My job is to increase security in this area and therefore I will take whatever measures need to be taken to do that. That always needs to be balanced against the appropriate use of those powers by the appropriate people.
The purpose of the amendments was to flag up that that important balance should always be there, not only in the mind of the Minister, but if possible, in the Bill. Although individual Ministers may have good intent, Ministers come and go, and future Governments may not operate under the same constraints. It is thus extremely important that the Bill contains all the safeguards that are needed. None the less, having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Designation: supplementary

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 4, page 4, line 29, at end insert
(3A) Any designation made under section 3 must be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament..
This is a short amendment. I will not weary the Committee by repeating the speech that I made earlier about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, but in essence the same argument applies, and I seek to probe the Ministers attitude. As hon. Members will see, this is the designation clause. It deals with the different facts that allow a designation to be made, the limits that are put on it, the fact that it can be permanent or for a specified period, and the functions that can be conferred through a designation.
The key point is that the
power to designate, or to withdraw or vary a designation
in other words, all the powers associated with the clause
is exercised by the Secretary of State giving notice to the official in question.
In essence, the Secretary of State is given powers to do all the things that Secretaries of State do in such cases.
In the amendment, we are once again seeking a precautionary measure. I hope, and indeed expect, that the provisions would almost never need to be exercised, but our proposals would provide a further small check so that any action proposed under the wide powers that the clause gives the Secretary of State could be undertaken only with the Parliaments approval.
I put that in the context of the relatively broad nature of the Governments plans in this area. We are beginning to tease out some of the details. The Bill gives the Secretary of State very broad powers, and it is not immediately apparentcertainly not from the Billhow they will be exercised in practice and in detail. The amendment would simply give Parliament some say and some check on how those powers are worked out and how they will operate in practice.
If the current or any future Secretary of State exercises the powers of designation in a reasonable and sensible way, the power in the amendment need never be brought into practical use. However, it would be useful to have it, and it would, once again, increase Parliaments ability to scrutinise the effects of the Bill.

Phil Woolas: As the Committee might expect, I ask it to resist the amendment. Again, I appreciate the hon. Gentlemans intent. I study Opposition amendments to Bills carefully, and this one falls into the category of cant think of anything to say, so well get Parliament to approve it.
The fact of the matter is that the designation power under the clause allows the Secretary of Statebut, in practice, the management of the UK Border Agencyto designate officials. It is intended to provide flexibility in the designation of general customs officials. Again, we are not talking about revenue powers. In practice, not all our officials will need all the powers of an HMRC officer. Some will be employed on functions that will not require them to have a full set of powers; for example, officials responsible for the customs clearance of international post and parcels would not require the powers of questioning and/or of searching passengers, for obvious reasons.
Accordingly, we need some flexibility in that regard. The effect of the amendment would be that the designation of all our officials would have to come before Parliament. We have 4,500 HMRC officials moving over, and we already have 2,000 immigration officials. I suggest to the Committee that we really do not want to have to do that job; it is the job of the Executive, not the legislature. The power is there in the Bill. To be fair, the intent of the hon. Member for Ashford was that the House could have that power. The effect of his amendment would be to enforce the Houses use of that power. I ask that we have the powers to designate officials but that we do not give that to ourselves to do in the House.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, although he is being dangerously provocative when he suggests that we tabled the amendment because we could not think of anything else. If he is challenging me to find amendments on clauses for which we have not yet found amendments, he can rest assured that we can be extremely fertile in that field if necessary. As ever, Sir Nicholas, you can be reassured that I seek only to improve the legislation. There are clauses that are improved by amending and clauses on which we are happy to have a clause stand part debate.
I take the Ministers point that there are things that the Executive should do and things that the legislature should do. Nevertheless, it is worth making the general point that the balance between the Executive and the legislature is out of joint and, in a sense, it is relatively easy for people to make the statement that we need grand schemes of reform to change it, but often it is the use of the process that does not work. It is in the detailed scrutiny of Bills that the legislature can make some difference, but we seek to do so not often enough, and that is part of the problem. I appreciate that I am now treading towards the tram lines of what is acceptable, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Directions by the Secretary of State

Amendment made: 21, in clause 5, page 4, line 41, leave out from of to end of line 41 and insert general customs functions..(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 19.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

The Director of Border Revenue

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 6, page 5, line 3, leave out must and insert may.
The clause deals with the new post of director of border revenue. On the surface, the purpose of the amendment is to give Ministers a flexibility that they may not want, but we also want to tease out the full powers of that new post and the practicalities behind it. 
We made some progress in the Lords, where there was a full debate about the new post, which is clearly hugely important. It is designated by the Secretary of State to exercise the functions of border revenue and also to carry out the general customs functionsI take the point the Minister made earlier about how important it is to distinguish the two. Clearly, the director will be the most important person in the whole new regime that this part of the Bill sets up, apart from the Secretary of State himself.
One of the questions I hope the Minister will address is whether it is necessary or contingent that the director of border revenue should always be the head of UKBA, because one of the things that was illuminated in the Lords debate was that that was the intention, and that Lin Homer would be appointed to the post. But it was left unclear as to whether that was a simple convenience at the time, and that she would add that extra role to her accounting officer role in UKBA, or whether it was always envisaged that they would be the same person.
I draw the Ministers attention to that apparently procedural point because it seems to me to be quite important, because the fluidity of the organisational structure of our immigration system has been extraordinary over the past few years and there may be no reason to believe it will be less so in the future. In the three and a half years I have been my partys immigration spokesman, we have moved from the Immigration and Nationality Department to the Border and Immigration Agency to the shadow UKBA, and now, from this April, to UKBA. That is four different structures in less than four years. The structure for immigration changes as often as the Home Secretary does; I am now shadowing my fourth Home Secretary as well, althoughI am happy to report from the Ministers point of viewonly my third immigration Minister. The job of immigration Minister is very slightly safer than that of Home Secretary.
Behind all that flux is the reason why I asked the question. It is a serious question as to whether it is necessary that the head of UKBA will always be the director of border revenue, because the post of the head of UKBA might itself change radically in future. In particular, if and when we have a fully integrated border police, one can imagine that there will be consequential effects on the organisation within UKBA which might mean that the two posts need not be coterminous.

Tom Brake: If there are to be two different people, it would be useful for the taxpayer to know what the financial implications are.

Damian Green: Indeed. That is one of the questions I am hoping that the Minister can address, because if we are, in effect, creating a post that, in the end, becomes a dignified part of the constitution, whether we have a separate person doing it at some vast expense is a very interesting question.
In the debate in the other place, Lord West said that the Government wanted to ensure that there was a clear, single and unified command structuresomething suitably military for Lord West.

Phil Woolas: That is what it says here too.

Damian Green: I am glad to hear that the Government are consistent and will say the same thing in this debate as they said several weeks ago in another place. But, in all seriousness, if that is what the Government are looking forwho could disagree with that as an aim?it is important to know which functions of the director of border revenue may be different from those of the director of UKBA. The two posts can be brought together under Lin Homer, which seems appropriate, but I am not just staring into a crystal ball when I say that the functions change. I have observed them changing considerably, in the relatively recent past. If, in particular, we move towards a unified border police force, it is easy to imagine that those functions will change quite radically in the future as well. Therefore, before we set up the post, the Committee deserves quite a lot more detail and clarity about what it is meant to achieve.
Essentially the question is whether the post is just a name. Is it required because there is a need for a director of revenue and an accounting officer, and someone formally responsible for all the money? Alternatively, is it envisaged as a new post, with new powers and new functions? I would not expect those to be set out in the Bill, but it would be useful for the House to know whether the post is essentially a sinecure that comes along with other jobs that people do, or a real job in its own rightor could the Minister envisage circumstances in which the former might become the latter in the future? Before we pass the clause it is important to tease out some of the details, and I hope that the Minister can do that.

Tom Brake: I support many of the points that have been made about seeking greater clarification of what the directors responsibilities will be; whether there is simply a requirement that someone should be called the director; whether it could potentially be a different person, and the financial implications of that; and whether the role is of such scale and significance as to imply the need to advertise the position of director, rather than simply passing the responsibility on to Lin Homer, as has been suggested. Any clarification that the Minister can give will be gratefully received.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful for the perfectly reasonable points that hon. Members have made. My approach was to give the Committee assurances that the position was required to maintain the principle that the powers were not with the Minister. I had not covered the point from the other end of the telescope, by dealing with the arrangements inside UKBA.
The United Kingdom Government receive about £22 billion from tax revenue collected at the border each year. That figure is rising, even in the current economic circumstances. It represents about 5 per cent. of the total tax take of the UK Border Agency. That is why the immigration Minister is also a Treasury Minister. The public may be interested to learn that included within that £22 billion about £2 billion is collected on behalf of the European Union. Thus we are dealing with significant sums of money. Clause 6 is intended to maintain the important principle that the director of revenue is not a Minister. This is a question of customs revenue functions. Those functions are currently undertaken by the commissioners of Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, so we are transferring them to the new director.
It is our policy and intention to appoint the chief executive of UKBA as the director of border revenue. That position is a civil service position and therefore maintains the separation. The Bill does not designate that the director must be the chief executive of the United Kingdom Border Agency. It says in my briefing notes that that is partly because that structure may not be permanent, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford, who, I am surprised to note, objects to evolution rather than radical reform as a principle. His police proposals would cause further radical reform. However, that designation is not in the Bill for the very reason that he highlighted. We would not want to have to come back in several years to change it.
In practice, a new job is not requiredit is not an additional position, but a legal power and responsibility that the chief executive should have, the terms and conditions for whom are a matter for the permanent secretary and not for Ministers, in line with those principles, although I am not aware of any proposals to change.
The amendment is successful in teasing out such points, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not want it passed, because that would allow the Home Secretary to become the director of border revenue, which I promise that the hon. Gentleman does not want. I do not know whether my new boss wants thatI have not talked to him about itbut I suspect that he would not, being the decent bloke that he is. I ask Hansard not to put that last phrase in, please, in case he reads it. My right hon. Friend the new Home Secretary does not want those powers. I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Damian Green: I am happy to assure the Minister that I am neither against evolution nor, when necessary, radical reform. An incoming Conservative Government would happily introduce radical reform in areas where it is needed. We have always done so and will continue to do so. Our borders are one area where we believe that radical reform is needed, because there have been many failures over the past few years.
I take the Ministers point and can see the sense of it. We do not want to have the director of border revenue receiving all that money, on behalf of the UK Government and of the EU as wellit should be the Home Secretary; he is right. I did not know why he was afraid of having that on the record if the Minister regards the Home Secretary as a decent bloke

Phil Woolas: It was the word blokeI meant my right hon. Friend.

Damian Green: I see. The right hon. Gentleman, the new Home Secretary, is indeed a decent human being. I think we can all agree on that. I hope that that nomenclature suffices both for Hansard and, perhaps more importantly, for the Home Secretary.
I also agree with the Minister in not wishing to foist on my hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary, should he become Home Secretary at some time in the future, the job of director of border revenue. That seems extremely sensible. As the Minister said, the amendment has achieved what I wished it to achieveit has teased out a certain amount of clarity on the purpose of the role and whether it is necessarily that of the chief executive of UKBA. I am glad that the Minister and his briefing recognise that there may well be changes to come in the organisation of the institutions responsible for border control.
In that spirit of cross-party good will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Customs revenue functions of the Director

Amendment made: 22, in clause 7, page 6, line 21, leave out from means to end of line 22 and insert 
(a) a function that is exercisable
(i) by the Director by virtue of this section, or
(ii) by customs revenue officials by virtue of section 11,
(b) a function that is conferred on customs revenue officials or the Director by or by virtue of any of sections 22 to 24 (investigations and detention), or
(c) a function under Community law that is exercisable by the Director or customs revenue officials in relation to a customs revenue matter..(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is similar to amendment 19, making provision in respect of the meaning of customs revenue functions which may be exercised by the Director of Border Revenue and customs revenue officials.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Damian Green: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas.

Nicholas Winterton: I have no idea what it might be, but I am happy to take it.

Damian Green: I sensed from movement that the Minister was about to move a clause stand part motion for clause 8. I simply wished to establish if that were the casethere are many clauses in the Bill for which neither we nor the Government have tabled an amendment. In that circumstance, is it still possible to have clause stand part debates?

Nicholas Winterton: To the very experienced Member of this House, the Member for Ashford, I say that there is always the possibility of having a clause stand part debate. I would say to members of the Committee that if they wish to have a clause stand part debate then they should rise to their feet in a very positive way, so that the Chairman may appreciate that they wish to contribute. There was no more than a quiver from the Minister. He did not rise to his feet, and therefore I continued to put the question that that particular clause stand part of the Bill. I give the very positive reassurance to the hon. Member for Ashford that if anyone wishes to have a clause stand part debate then I am not prepared to stand against themit is my duty to call them, so that there may be a clause stand part debate.

Clause 9

Delegation of Directors functions

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 9, page 6, line 37, leave out make arrangements to delegate and insert
designate by approval of the Secretary of State.
I rise very positively to my feet to move this amendment, Sir Nicholas.
The purpose of the amendment is to make a subtle change. The Minister has already referred to the Carltona principleit is a good party game to play at the Committee stage of any Bill to see how far you can get through before somebody mentions the Carltona principle. Those of us who do these things regularly can remember from year to year what it is, but I suspect that if we conducted a quiz among Members, many of them would not necessarily know what the Carltona principle is. It dates back to 1943I see that I am causing puzzlement. I have a briefing that shows that:
The case most often cited is Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works 1943.
It is an important and sensible principle. It strikes me as bizarre that the ability to transfer powers to an official from a Secretary of State had not been firmly established before 1943there had been Government Departments for more than a century before then. We might go a long way off-piste musing on, first, the relationship between Ministers and their officials in earlier times and, secondly, the efficacy of Government when there were fewer of either Ministers or officials and this country ran half the globe. I am getting slightly off the subject here.
Let me move back to the powers held by the director of border revenue and the possibility of their transference to another official. That is slightly different from the straightforward transfer of powers from the Secretary of State to other officials. Clause 9 refers to the director of border revenue delegating powers. This amendment seeks to allow that to happenit is entirely sensible and unremarkable that that should happenbut only with the approval of the Secretary of State. It is limiting the power of the director of border revenue to delegate functions to those conferred by the Bill. The purpose of this is not particularly to modify the powers of the director, but to probe the other functions it is intended to confer on the director. We have had one helpful debate about the role of the director vis-Ă -vis other parts of the immigration system, but this would be an appropriate point in the passage of the Bill to explore the full range of the directors powers. It is perfectly reasonable to be wary of giving powers to an official if we are not sure of the full raft of powers that that official will have.
It is convenient to have reached this debate, in which we seek to insert the Secretary of State into the process to ensure that we are not giving too much power to an official when in some cases it would be better exercised by the political leadership, so that there is some kind of democratic accountability to this place in the powers of the director of border revenue.
Although this small amendment deals with only one aspect of the directors powers, I hope that the Minister will take it as an invitation to spread a bit more widely and explain to us the full range of the directors powers as well, obviously, as the important point about why the Secretary of State should not have some say when powers are delegated further down the organisation.

Phil Woolas: I rise positively, Sir Nicholas, and not with a quiver to reply to this debate. It is the responsibility of the Minister to put on the record for the Committee and for Hansard, where it is necessary, the intent of the clause. I draw the Committees attention to the fact that my noble Friend was able to do so for clause 8 in the other place. Therefore, that explains my quiver. I was trying to be helpful but it was not necessary because of that.
Let me address directly the delegation of the directors functions to officials, which clause 9 enables. This practice allows operational flexibility and is necessary. It is already the case with officials in their relationship with the commissioners. Of course, in practice, most of the functions of the director are undertaken by officials under the designation arrangements set out in clause 11. Only designated officials will be able to exercise the front-line enforcement powers currently relied on by officers of Her Majestys Revenue and Customs at the border to tackle smuggling. Those powers are not exercisable by the director and are therefore subject to the delegation power.
The amendment would remove the power to delegate and replace it with a power to designate a function with the approval of the Secretary of State. It seems likelythe hon. Member for Ashford has confirmed thisthat the amendment is intended to make the delegation of functions by the director subject to approval by the Secretary of State, or at least to restrict delegation of functions to those who are designated by the Secretary of State. That would be inappropriate and unnecessary. Let me quickly explain why.
In exercising revenue functions, the director of border revenue is not subject to the direction of the Home Secretary. The director acts independently but, like HMRC, is subject to the general directions of the Treasury. The directors functions will be exercisable by designated customs and revenue officials under clause 11, as I said, but it is right that the director should also be able to delegate her functions to others, including those in the UK Border Agency.
At the same time, clause 9 provides some fundamental safeguards. The director must monitor the exercise of any delegated function and the person exercising such functions must comply with their direction. In that context, if there were a need to oversee the directors exercise of the power to delegate, that role would fall to the Treasury, not the Secretary of State.

Damian Green: I quite take the Ministers point that the amendment might be defective in that respect. Is he saying that it would be less defective had we inserted the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than the Secretary of State? I dare say he would still have opposed it.

Phil Woolas: Had I risen positively and not with a quiver, I would already have answered that questionsort of. In the revenue functions, the director of border revenue is accountable to the policies of the commissioners, who act on the policy of the Chancellor. The Budget is traditionally the device by which that policy is set in this country. In that regard, the answer is indirectly yes. That explains why the Minister for Borders and Immigration is also a Treasury Minister for the purposes of customs and revenue. I would probably have been advised to resist the amendment in any event, but I would have done so very gently.

Damian Green: I am delighted that we have teased out not just why the Minister opposes the amendment, but the degree of gentleness with which he wishes to treat it. His explanation is perfectly reasonable so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 23, in clause 9, page 6, line 38, leave out from Director to end of line 39.(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 22.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Compliance with directions etc.

Amendment made: 24, in clause 10, page 7, line 8, leave out functions in relation to customs revenue matters and insert customs revenue functions.(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 22.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Directions by the Director

Amendment made: 25, in clause 13, page 9, line 3, leave out from of to end of line 4 and insert customs revenue functions..(Mr. Woolas.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 22.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Use and Disclosure of customs information

Damian Green: I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 14, page 10, line 7, at end add
(8) Nothing in this Act shall enable any of the officers designated under this Part to use any personal data of UK citizens to restrict their right to enter or leave the United Kingdom for legitimate purposes..
We now come to a more contentious part of the Bill dealing with the use and disclosure of information. The Minister will be aware that this matter is extremely fraught. Conservative Members think that it is hugely important and that far too much of the relevant Home Office policy is proceeding in the wrong direction, with a dangerous tendency to collect too much information and to give the various organs of the state too much power to share it with one another without the permission of the person about whom the information was collected. Through amendment 9 and, even more so, amendments 10 to 12, we seek either to probe or change Government policy.
It is arresting to think that an amendment need be tabled to a Bill to prevent legislation from being used to bar British citizens from entering or leaving their own country for legitimate purposes, but we seek to do just that. Essentially, our worry is that the powers taken by the Government in this clause might allow them to do precisely that. The Bill does not make clear how UKBA intends to use the data collected from this function in conjunction with the e-Borders function, which is also being introduced. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about databases and information sharing. He will be aware how much information will be available through the e-Borders system and the customs information being collected under clause 14, which will provide the Government with more information that presumably will be recorded. This is a classic example of where two sets of information collected perfectly properly might be combined and then used improperly.
It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could set out the extent of the information that could be brought together partly under the aegis of clause 14. As well as the provisions in the Bill, the e-Borders database can track and store international travel records, names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and, potentially, credit card details. I am sure that the Minister will be proud to tell us that, when it is fully up and running, the system will monitor all 250 million journeys made in and out of this country each year. He will be aware that the Government propose, rather controversially, to store the data for up to 10 years. We think that that is excessive and that some of the data being collected will be ineffective in tackling cross-border crime and hugely intrusive for the entirely innocent. It will also be massively expensive.
It is even more toxic, however, to combine that with the use and disclosure of customs information under clause 14, because huge questions remain to be answeredon top of those about e-Bordersabout the intersection of these different systems. The intrusion of privacy of anyone, even the most innocent British traveller crossing their own borders, is going up and up. The amount of information that will be collected and stored for many years by the Government goes up with every piece of legislation. It is not the appropriate time or place to debate the e-Borders systemthe Minister knows that we think other countries have implemented similar but better systems in far shorter periods.

Phil Woolas: It is the best in the world. People come here to look at it.

Damian Green: The Minister says that it is the best in the world. I dare say that some other countries come to look in at it, and I would see what they say when they have left. The specific problem with the clause is that yet again, the Government are falling through the trap of making the system as intrusive as possible for the respectable traveller, whether coming to Britain or taking a trip away from here, while not necessarily collecting all the information that will be needed to track our professional criminals or terrorists. Essentially, my fear is that we are setting up the worst of all worlds, where the general aggregation of private information about entirely innocent British citizens will be more intrusive than any other regime in the democratic world. At the same time, it is not at all clear that those who quite properly should be stopped and checked and have their details down will be caught.
One of the paradoxes that the Minister needs to address is the sheer weight of information that is being collected, and the sheer length of time that it is being collected for, which may well militate against the effective action against those who we all want to stop. We have seen the manifold failures of databasesagain, this is not the appropriate clause under which to discuss the matterand it must have impinged on the Government now that simply collecting more information about entirely innocent journeys and people and keeping it for longer is not the most effective way of making our borders secure. It is not, in this context, the best way of ensuring that we get the appropriate customs information and then using that information to contribute to the general safety of the border.
As people increasingly understand that point, those who find their journeys made more difficultthey might have to queue for longeror feel that they have to give up unnecessary information to immigration and customs officials, their resentment about the queues and the information that they are giving will increase. They will want to know that every piece of information collected is necessary, and also what is going to happen to that information, even if it is not left on a disc or a laptop stuck on a train by somebody going home at night. Who in Government has access to it? It is precisely apparently harmless clauses in Bills such as this one, about the use and disclosure of customs information, that allow information to be collected and spread. That should ring alarm bells in anyone who cares about privacy.
I invite members of the Committee who have not necessarily studied every last comma of the Bill to look at the clause very carefully, and look at the powers that are being given to officials to collect and disseminate information. We are now entering a part of the Bill that is potentially quite dangerous for the future of the privacy of innocent British citizens and for the effectiveness of the attack on immigration and customs crime, which is the purpose of this part of the Bill. I hopebut not very expectantlythat perhaps Minister can reassure me on those points.

Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for us to examine a new area of the Bill that I hope will allow us, without stepping too far away from its content, to touch briefly on issues that many hon. Members from both sides of the House have raised relating to the use and disclosure of information. Given the Governments preference for setting up large databases, this may give the Minister another opportunity to jump up and ask, Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of large databases or against them? He has to acknowledge that Liberal Democrats, as a party, are not luddites. Therefore we do not necessarily have any objections in principle to large databases. However, we are concerned about the information that is being collected in such databases, the duration for which it will be kept and the controls that exist in respect of access to that data: who has access to it and whether it is appropriate for them to have it, and so on. We also have significant concerns about the potential for large chunks of data to be lost. It is appropriate for the Minister to respond to those concerns in respect of this part of the Bill and to provide some reassurances about the safeguards that will be in place to ensure that these data are managed, the minimal nature of the data that will be collected and the maximum controls to safeguard those data and restrict access to them.
We are becoming an increasingly surveyed society. Although it has not yet been confirmed that we are a surveillance society, with the number of CCTV cameras, databases and different ways of collecting data on people that are being rolled out, any opportunity to try to redress that balance through this Bill as it relates to the use and disclosure of information, including the use and disclosure of customs information, is helpful. I will listen carefully to what the Minister is about to say about the safeguards.

Phil Woolas: I understand the intent of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington in seeking safeguards.
Let me start my reassurances by saying that the clause relates to the powers that Revenue and Customs and immigration officers have already. The clause is about how they share information with each other for their own purposes. This is not, as the hon. Member for Ashford said, about the electronic borders system, but about how customs and immigration officials hand information to each other, particularly with regard to the purposes of prosecution of customs and immigration offences.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for confirming that that is what this process is about. However, does he agree that it is precisely at a moment of transition where structures and procedures are being changed that the potential for breaches, for instance, is at its greatest?

Phil Woolas: I agree; that is my experience. That is why the hon. Gentleman is right to press me on that point. However, let me build on my reassurances, because they are important.
To understand the purpose of the clause and see who it applies to, Committee members have to look specifically at clause 14(2) and at clause 15, with its prohibition on disclosure of personal customs information, which is the other side of the coin. My reassurances are not just contained in clause 14, but are built upon in later clauses. In relation to the exercise of the existing functions, the provision is an essential tool in support of law enforcement, national security and securing the border effectively. It is also necessary to be able to secure the optimum development of the officers involved.
We talked earlier about the benefits of coming together, which means that officers need to share information in respect of certain cases. That is the purpose of the clause. However, there is a restriction and prohibition on the disclosure of information imposed elsewhere in part 1 of the Bill and in other enactments, and in any agreement to which the United Kingdom is party. Those restrictions and prohibitions will be particularly important in relation to personal customs information.
The provisions in the relevant clauses apply only to customs information acquired by the UK Border Agency from sources other than Revenue and Customs or the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office. There is a separate confidentiality framework for the use and disclosure of information provided by Revenue and Customs and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office, which is set out in existing legislation including, in particular, as the hon. Member for Ashford will remember, the UK Borders Act 2007.
All information within the UK Border Agency is shared, held and retained in line with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. The agency has implemented enhanced procedures to protect personal data in the light of the recommendations of the review of information handling. We have adopted those recommendations, which include the appointment of a senior information risk owner and the use of encrypted laptops and removal media only, if they contain personal data and are to be taken outside secure premises. A new centralised encryption service, a new system for reporting security instances and an information charter have been established.
Let me emphasise that my assurances relate to the wider database that does not leave the premises and can only be used by us, as opposed to the carrier information that the hon. Member for Ashford mentioned. That is not directly relevant to the clause, which is about sharing customs information inside the agency.
Amendment 9 replicates an amendment tabled in the other place, during Report stage. First, it probes the nature of the information that it is envisaged the UK Border Agency will acquire given the provisions of the Bill, and the purposes for which that information might be used. Secondly, through the amendment the hon. Member for Ashford probes the e-Borders programme once again. However, it would prevent a designated customs official from using the personal data of a UK citizen to restrict that citizens right to enter or leave the UK where there is an apparently legitimate purpose for the journey.
In laypersons terms, the issue before the Committee is this: if a person wanted for criminal purposes is leaving or entering the country, where that journey is for legitimate purposes, do the officials have the power to interfere? We argue that they do. Let me use an extreme example to illustrate my point. If a wanted terrorist is leaving the country to genuinely go on holiday to Majorca, I suggest that you, Sir Nicholas, would want me to instruct my officials to arrest him and not let him go because he is making a legitimate journey. We come to the heart of the matter. I respect the hon. Gentlemans saying that legitimate British holidaymakers should not be interfered withquite right, toobut we need powers and information to stop criminal activity.
The hon. Gentleman is looking perplexed.

Damian Green: The amendment talks about officers designated under this part of the Bill, which does not include police officers. If a suspected terrorist was going across the borders, I imagine that the police would have something to say about that.

Phil Woolas: Ah, the trap has been laid and the quarry has fallen into it. So are my immigration and customs officials not to seize that person and hold them in the holding centre, after which the police would be called, as is so at the moment?

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I hesitate to interrupt just as the excitement is mounting, but it is 1 pm. However, before I adjourn the Committee, can I advise all hon. Members that when they have left the room will be locked, so any papers and other documents and possessions can be left here in the knowledge that they will be secure and safe?

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88.)

Adjourned till this day at Four oclock.